EPA: Ignore our previous statements on Ocean Acidification

The EPA is fighting a desperate battle to sink a green lawsuit, a lawsuit which is substantially based on the EPA’s own climate narrative.

The Lawsuit, launched by the Center for Biological Diversity, seeks to impose enhanced clean water act protection upon the Pacific Coast. The suit argues that protection is necessary because, according to the EPA’s own climate narrative, ocean acidification is severely damaging the marine ecosystem.

According to the CBD;

“The CBD points out that the EPA has acknowledged that ocean acidification has killed billions of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest but still would not classify the waters as imperilled.”

The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.

“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”

If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.

Of course, if the EPA loses the case, an even more farcical situation may arise – the EPA’s failure may open the floodgate for compensation lawsuits against the US government, from people who claim their livelihoods are being damaged by ocean acidification, due to the EPA’s failure to protect the environment from CO2 “pollution”.

There are many fundamental truths in old sayings and quotations. One the EPA might like to ponder on is this :
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.
So true, and how often we find that deceptions come back to bite the deceiver. Far too many in the climate alarmist world have yet to learn that “Honesty is the best policy”.

As much as I would like to see the EPA eat their words (or regulation booklets) this could backfire pretty bad and support their extremely expensive (and cash cow for some) case of “Fighting the Evil CO2”

The EPA may well have ‘painted themselves into a corner’…. but it will be the US taxpayers that pick up the cost of litigation, compensation, reparations, et.al.
What a profound waste of time, effort, and money, spent addressing a nonexistent issue that both flora and fauna are already adapted to…….

“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,”
I guess lawyers who don’t have the talent to be successful private litigators go and work for the government. A statement like this just begs a bunch of studies to be done, ironically paid for by government. When they do have the ‘evidence’ (oh it will be peer reviewed by the biological polit-buro) they find themselves check mated. Oh and let’s imagine more than just Washington State fisherman lawsuits!! The Californian Current ends up bathing the western Pacific from Papua to Japan and the Gulf Stream the coasts of the EUSSR and West Africa.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” – Sir Walter Scott

Is this the same EPA that funded environmental organizations with the express purpose that the funding would give those organizations the necessary resources through which to turn around and sue that same EPA? An underhanded way to force diktats on the public? Diktats that the EPA itself always wanted but were reluctant to take direct credit for? (We had to do it; the court demanded it!) Diktats out legislators don’t have to take direct credit for either? (We didn’t vote on it – against our constituent’s interests.)
Could this be blowback?

Pacific Ocean today. Atlantic and Indian Oceans tomorrow. Law suits against the US will continue, since US is the biggest overall historical contributor of CO2 to atmosphere (and the preferred target for such things generally).
Let’s hear James Hansen and rest of the cheer this on.

There is a viable explanation for the death of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest. The oyster farms were raising various Asian species of oysters. The indigenous Pacific oysters continue to thrive. Upwelling of cold water along the coast have been identified as the source of oyster jeopardy. It is reasonable to postulate that the Asian oysters have not acclimated to the colder waters along the WA and OR coasts. Consequently, the larvae die.

What about coral reefs in volcanic regions where a lot of volcanic CO2 comes out of the sea bed? I remember vaguely somebody said that those corals are doing very well in this CO2 saturated sea water. Is this information correct? Has anybody more details of such a situation. If this claim would be right and widely known, then the whole sea-water-acidification scaremongering story should come to an end…

Given the current “excellence ” of the American Courts, i foresee every possibility that the EPA will lose this case and end up with a court ordered mandate to once again solve something which they have absolutely no chance of even affecting i.e. “ocean acidification”. They will attack the problem with their usual bull-in a china shop enthusiasm, destroying businesses and jobs while generating not a whit of difference in the ocean’s pH.
This, of course, will be right in line with the Bamster’s long term plan of removing the last and best example that maximizing human liberty also maximizes human well being, while attempting to maximize human equality only leads to inevitable totalitarianism.

Get the popcorn ready. Seattle based CBD is basing their oyster claim on the Seattle Times series, Sea Change, which based its oyster reporting on ‘official’ press releases from NOAA PMEL, in turn based on a fundamentally flawed PMEL/OSU paper concerning the Whiskey Creek oyster hatchery on Netarts Bay Oregon. So EPAs response is ‘officially’ factually wrong. But the correct factual response would reveal how deceptive and shoddy a lot of the climate research is on which they base things like endangerment findings. This kerfuffle now in the courts could cause the whole house of cards to come down upon both sides on discovery.
The oyster ‘scam’ claiming an ocean acidification ‘smoking climate gun’ (to direct quote a PMEL press release) was exposed by my post ‘Shell Games’ at Climate Etc. earlier this year. An expanded version including the Australian coral reef ‘scam’ (also amplified by the Sea Change reporting) is in my forthcoming book.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service also declined last month to list the wolverine in the US as “threatened” and that has put the usual planet-saver groups’ knickers in a twist.
An article in Daily Beast unabashedly spews the warmist narrative using some real howlers like these: “The U.S. Navy predicts summer Arctic sea ice will be gone by 2016”. … “researchers now predict [Glacier National] Park]’s glaciers will disappear by 2020.”
“The Big Lie” must still be the preferred strategy.

“””…
thinair
August 25, 2014 at 11:29 am
Pacific Ocean today. Atlantic and Indian Oceans tomorrow. Law suits against the US will continue, since US is the biggest overall historical contributor of CO2 to atmosphere (and the preferred target for such things generally). ….””””
Actually, this is not true. The USA, is the largest, and perhaps the only large land based carbon sink. We are not a net carbon source, our MAN MADE agriculture and farmed forestry, soak up more than all the MAN MADE carbon emissions of the USA. And then some of the natural NON MAN MADE carbon emissions as well, because the USA, is a NET CARBON SINK.
Yes you can find the peer reviewed scientific papers on that.

Roger Andrews had a post on ocean acidification over on Energy Matters a few weeks ago.http://euanmearns.com/is-ocean-acidification-a-threat/
I am struggling to keep up with the deluge of information, but if I recall correctly, dissolving carbonate beasties has more to do with upwelling deep water that contains more dissolved “CO2” than surface waters where the dissolved CO2 content has barely changed. Roger has a knack of plotting charts that say it all, here’s his chart for Aloha CO2http://oi61.tinypic.com/k0pqb4.jpg
Understanding the CO2- bicarbonate – carbonic acid equilibria is a bitch!

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Please note:The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Where have all the money gone, long time passing……. no answers.

Rud Istvan wrote:
“Seattle based CBD is basing their oyster claim on the Seattle Times series, Sea Change…”
Thanks, Rud, I was afraid that might be the case. The Seattle Times series on ocean acidification was about as schlocky a piece of science journalism as you will ever see, regardless of how you feel about AGW. Cliff Mass, who would rather not have to battle the AGW proponents, nevertheless felt it necessary to point out the worst excesses of the series. But the most bizarre aspect of this entire debacle was the fact that despite a few offhand swipes at AGW, the acidification issues were related to waters that went deep before AGW even started!

paddylol says:
December 8, 2013 at 5:30 pm
farmerbraun: The Seattle Times ran a series about how ocean acidification was destroying WA and OR oyster farmers. Dr Cliff Mass, a meteorology professor at U of WA, took issue with the series and the bad science involved. He was excoriated for his lack of expertise and experience. Dr Mass [replied] with an extensive post upon his blog.
Needless to say, his response was silenced the alarmists.http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2013/11/coastal-ocean-acidification-answering.html

WUWT has dealt with the ocean acidification oyster ‘problem’ in the Pacific Northwest before. Not man-made at all.

From the same 2009 report, bolding mine:
“……..• Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 – 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone. When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 – 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated. Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions.
• A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment. Vt infections are lethal to shellfish larvae and juveniles. High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks……..”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/oyster-crisis-yale-360-wwf-eco-activist-elizabeth-grossman-wrong-again-about-ocean-acidification/

I seem to remember a while back an article positing that some green government agencies invite government-funded green pressure groups to sue them when the desired outcome is otherwise politically unacceptable. The EPA has a well-earnt reputation for probity and would surely never countenance such action.

Ralph Kramden
August 25, 2014 at 12:20 pmIt’s important to remember that when CO2 dissolves in water 99% remains a dissolved gas. Only 1% reacts to form carbonic acid H2CO3 and carbonic acid is a weak acid that only partially ionizes.
That is true for fresh water, but it is the opposite in alkaline seawater: less than 1% is dissolved gas, ~90% is bicarbonate and ~9% is carbonate. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot

The EPA, it is quite clear have an overt political agenda, they are a committee full of left wing bureaucrats playing at science and God but not necessarily in that order.
Outrageously, in their hubristic know it all green advocacy did they so name CO2 a poison for goodness sakes! CO2 a gas, which is a fundamental to life for all varieties of flora……… Well, lets see in that case all natural gases, substances – even water can be a poison if imbibed in sufficient quantity.
What is safe? Which way is up? What direction is north? And are……….. the ocean’s flora, fauna dying of acidification all thanks to MAN MADE CO2?
Hell, don’t ask the EPA.
Normal people don’t.

Now what do we have here on the other side of the Pacific? It’s worse than we thought!

Abstract – May 28, 2013Larval and Post-Larval Stages of Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Are Resistant to Elevated CO2
…………….Using multiple physiological measurements and life stages, the effects of long-term (40 days) exposure to pH 8.1, 7.7 and 7.4 on larval shell growth, metamorphosis, respiration and filtration rates at the time of metamorphosis, along with the juvenile shell growth and structure of the C. gigas, were examined in this study. The mean survival and growth rates were not affected by pH. The metabolic, feeding and metamorphosis rates of pediveliger larvae were similar, between pH 8.1 and 7.7. The pediveligers at pH 7.4 showed reduced weight-specific metabolic and filtration rates, yet were able to sustain a more rapid post-settlement growth rate. However, no evidence suggested that low pH treatments resulted in alterations to the shell ultrastructures (SEM images) or elemental compositions (i.e., Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca ratios). Thus, larval and post-larval forms of the C. gigas in the Yellow Sea are probably resistant to elevated CO2 and decreased near-future pH scenarios. The pre-adapted ability to resist a wide range of decreased pH may provide C. gigas with the necessary tolerance to withstand rapid pH changes over the coming century.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064147

As well as the upwelling of ‘bad’ ocean water we had Vibrio tubiashii disease.

Abstract – 26 April 2008
The Extracellular Metalloprotease of Vibrio tubiashii Is a Major Virulence Factor for Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Larvae
Vibrio tubiashii is a recently reemerging pathogen of larval bivalve mollusks, causing both toxigenic and invasive disease. ……..http://aem.asm.org/content/74/13/4101.short

@ rogerknights August 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Would you clarify your sentence “Needless to say, his response was silenced the alarmists.” as it makes no sense.
Should it be “..his response was silenced (by) the alarmists.”?
Should it be “..his response has silenced the alarmists.”?
Or something else?

Near-future levels of ocean acidification do not affect sperm motility and fertilization kinetics in the oyster Crassostrea gigas
……………Here we report the effects of near-future levels of ocean acidification (≈−0.35 pH unit change) on sperm swimming speed, sperm motility, and fertilization kinetics in a population of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas from western Sweden. We found no significant effect of ocean acidification – a result that was well-supported by power analysis. Similar findings from Japan suggest that this may be a globally robust result, and we emphasise the need for experiments on multiple populations from throughout a species’ range. We also discuss the importance of sound experimental design and power analysis in meaningful interpretation of non-significant results.http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/3009/2009/bg-6-3009-2009.html

Hay. There is a great electro chemistry mashup possible.
1) Remember the Electrolysis story a few days ago,
2) Remember the Story about the Ozone Hole and a befuddled NASA about the pesky CCl4 that the Montreal Protocol did not solve (the two have nothing in common).
3) Just in; Methane from seabed hydrates off the US East Coast.
Mix ingredients gently, stirred not shaken, and not in a blender, and zap (be sure that the Bartender is grounded).
What we got ?
With application of lightening strikes on the oceans, a pinch of salt and a pinch of methane we get CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride) and some Cl2 (chlorine gas, the wonder weapon of the German army in WWI) and HCl (good old hydrochloric acid) — Ocean Acidification without the bicarbonate — “berp”.
Check your old chemistry books; the details are all there.
Ha ha. 🙂

The cyclical changes in currents and wind cause upwelling of lower pH colder water that can impact west coast oysters in locations only marginally within tolerable pH limits to begin with. They also bring up the nutrients which
seem to be critical for out migrating salmon survival.
The monster salmon runs being seen in British Columbia this year would have been heading out at the time local oyster farmers began complaining of low survival and pH.
Which would you rather eat, oysters or salmon?

paddylol,
It isn’t so much the colder temperatures of upwelling currents, but the fact they have a higher concentration of CO2.
I once asked Dr Richard Feeley of NOAA and University of WA how they could be so sure that the change in pH which was impacting oysters in their larval stage was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and not a natural phenomenom related to off shore upwelling. The response I got was that climate change can impact upwelling currents by changing surface wind patterns. Pretty weak in my opinion.

Watch out for a settle and consent reponse. It’s an old tactic of the environmental left. Everything is worked out in advance. Start with the super-enviros within an agency such as the EPA. They are frustrated that they can’t yet control every aspect of honest people’s lives. They want more extreme laws and regulations so that they can really, really carry out transformational change, but such laws are politically unachievable, So they secretly recruit some uber-left group, let’s say the “Guardians of the Wild”, to file a lawsuit alleging the feds have failed to properly enforce their own laws. The government, after mounting only a token defense, will then throw its hands up and say “We bad, we bad” and sign a consent decree agreeing to everything the enviros want. Thus does the left wing of government get far more stricter laws than the legislature would ever pass, all under a court’s approval.

In some countries, the bureaucrats are held accountable for their actions.
This scares the poo out of those bureaucrats.
If this was applied to climate scientists’ and their cronies, then I think you would find the supposed problems of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ would simply disappear.
Being made accountable for all the findings in their ‘research’ would undoubtedly make ‘climate scientists’ much less inclined to sensationalise the unsensational and/or peddle the results of dodgy computer programs.

The sue and settle tactics of the EPA and FWS are a major drain on public resources that many people are not aware of. Sue and settle has allowed for many environmental attorneys and administrators of environmental organizations to become quite wealthy while not contributing a single benefit to society.

Re “EPA: Ignore our previous statements on Ocean Acidification 8/20/14:
The fate of the facts also besets the experts’ analysis. The surface layer of the ocean is supposed to be a bottleneck to the flux of atmospheric CO2 according to the equations of the “marine carbonate buffer system” and acidity. AR4, Box 7.3. These equations might apply were the surface layer only in thermodynamic equilibrium, but no part of Earth’s climate system is ever in that state.
This analysis on which EPA relies turns the atmosphere into a buffer, making CO2 a “long lived greenhouse gas” in queue behind deep ocean sequestration for up to 35K years, according to IPCC contributor, computational ocean chemistry Professor David Archer. In reality, the surface layer of the ocean is the CO2 buffer with no known change in acidity, while the flux follows Henry’s Law instantaneously on the time scale of climate, if not meteorology.
Besides all that, IPCC has zero net flux for natural CO2 while Anthropogenic CO2 is bottlenecked. The difference between the two is their mix according to three isotopes of carbon, and the two species soon enough mix irreversibility in the atmosphere. Moreover, no solution exists for three solubility coefficients to make one mix bottleneck and the other not.
It’s not sea water; it’s bilge.

This is worrying because it is the same “sue and settle” model used to generate other EPA rules which gets around Congress having a say. Of course EPA have to defend themselves, but this defense is so weak it has to be designed to lose and then they can say that they have to regulate CO2 etc etc etc. This is simply a way to ship more taxpayer money to environmental pressure groups (and their lawyers) and to shore up the CO2 endangerment finding.

This cannot end well. Either way, we get the shaft. If the EPA wins, they are undamaged and have no reason to back down from their opinion. If the EPA loses then we have some really crazy stuff going on. It sounds lose/lost for me.

Boss & Mods: The new format looks good.
—————————————————Eliza August 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm
“AW Maybe you should enlarge your fonts …”
Assuming you are talking about this posting, regardless of how it is constructed, if you can (I’m using Chrome), just enlarge using the zoom function. I typically go to 125%.

This is an example of how the EPA advances it’s “regulate the economy into submission” agenda. It actually funds so-called independant eco groups to “investgate” eco problems which the EPA then says it can’t regulate under current law. The eco group then files a suit demanding the EPA enforce such and such law which then goes before a court who states the EPA has authority – then the EPA says Hey, the court instructed us to enforce such and such and we now have to pay such and such fines which serves to funnel more taxpayer funds to eco activist groups who then spend that money to “expand” their efforts to sue the EPA over other problems and so on and on it goes. Usually their legal firm that advises these eco groups and files the lawsuits is The Environmental Defense Fund. This is a hugh scam both from an self enrichment standpoint but also serves to quietly and out the public’s view advance an idealogical agenda. The cost to the taxpayer is not only the Govt funds spent but also the indirect affect of higher costs to industries with the result of higher prices to the consumer and eventualy the loss of jobs by the newly regulated companies.For the unknowing taxpayer it’s a double whamy.

This is unprecedented. You have to wonder why???? And How????? We simply must act now! It’s all for the little kids.

Abstract – 2011
Will ocean acidification affect marine microbes?
……….Useful comparisons can be made with microbes in other aquatic environments that readily accommodate very large and rapid pH change. For example, in many freshwater lakes, pH changes that are orders of magnitude greater than those projected for the twenty second century oceans can occur over periods of hours. Marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions. Therefore, an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions.http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v5/n1/full/ismej201079a.html
———————–Abstract – December 19, 2011
Gretchen E. Hofmann et al
High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison
………. These observations reveal a continuum of month-long pH variability with standard deviations from 0.004 to 0.277 and ranges spanning 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. The nature of the observed variability was also highly site-dependent, with characteristic diel, semi-diurnal, and stochastic patterns of varying amplitudes. These biome-specific pH signatures disclose current levels of exposure to both high and low dissolved CO2, often demonstrating that resident organisms are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100……..
…..and (2) in some cases, seawater in these sites reaches extremes in pH, sometimes daily, that are often considered to only occur in open ocean systems well into the future [46]. …..
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028983http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028983

Party of the First Part – The Emperor’s cloths are shrinking!
Party of the Second Part – Then I’m suing you for failure to protect the Emperor’s cloths.
Party of the First Part – You can’t do that. There’s no evidence the Emperor even has any cloths.

Rodgerknights, if I commented as a career and not on an iPad during limited free time probably would post your requested link to ClimateEtc Shell Games. But since it is at most two Google clicks away from you, suggest you let your fingers do the walking. Cliff Mass also posted the link in his blog post on Sea Change oysters, previously linked above. Old news for which I thanked Cliff several months ago. When I post links, they are to stuff not so easily found via simple Google search efforts. See recent next book excerpt ‘No Bodies’ at Climate Etc. for a recent example.
All this seems to prove the adage that falsehoods spread around the world while truth struggles to get its boots on. The Internet is only a partial solution. Blogs are only a partial solution. But at least the Internet presents a viable guerrilla warfare equivalent to a false CONSENSUS, a special ops warfare now being conducted with my avid support. That metaphor is both apt and meant literally.
We are on the same side. but please stop demanding that some make it easier than easy for others. Won’t happen unless you have a large Koch paycheck waiting… In which case I firmly suggest it get sent divvied to A Watts, J Curry, J Nova, and A Monfort ( amongst others). Not me.

Hi Cliff. I will post this separately to you directly with more explication to a friendly acquaintance. An old legal adage is “80% of the answer is in the question”. OJ, if the glove fits, and all that.
To your question above, the answer is at 722 F. 3d 401 (Federal Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 2014), in re No. 11-0293-JCVS, 2013 Wl 1729591. Google can take you there from here for free if you just use search terms Center for Biological Diversity EPA (the Google search algorithm does not parse either/or in this exact form, so is ‘forced’ to find ‘both’– precisely what you requested.
Good hunting.

Standard practice by EPA. Get sued by an NGO they are funding. Lose or settle, handing over taxpayer’s money to the NGO. Use the result to change the law, and obtain more authority, personnel, and funding.
This one will be interesting though, given the sparsity and variability of ocean pH data. My bet is EPA will try to settle, at least then passing on funding so the NGO can live to fight another day.
It would be nice to see somewhere a politician/congressman who recognized that this is a rort.

Ocean acidification is a misnomer to scare people. The correct terminology is ocean neutralization. Seawater is basic pH 8.1. Add fresh water and seawater will become less basic because pure water is neutral pH = 7.0. No adverse effect on shellfish since pH of ocean is at optimal level (7.5 to 9.0). Besides the ocean is supersaturated on calcium carbonate. Supersaturation means excess solute not deficiency.

Cliff Mass August 25, 2014 at 3:35 pm
…
Cliff, in your response to the Seattle Times you claim that CO2 will be a great problem in a few decades. CO2-> ocean acidification can NEVER be a problem due to the underlying (calcium) carbonate structures of the ocean beds. Even at the locations of substantial undersea vents outgassing CO2 off the Papua New Guinea coast there is no ACIDIFICATION of the local waters.
Further, it is becoming clearly apparent that atmospheric CO2 is not causing the temperatures to rise … there is much evidence to this effect. The warming has stopped for +17 years (RSS) yet the CO2 continues to increase.
Your reference to future great problems in a few decades cannot be substantiated … if, and only IF, observed decadal increases continue, a problem MAY exist in a few centuries time by which time any amount of other catastrophes will have come to pass.
There is little evidence to link CO2 to any catastrophic outcomes, whether on and or in the sea.

Give volcanoes can punch out so much sulfur dioxide into the oceans and atmosphere it was a wise choice, because they couldn’t sustain the acid ocean farce any longer, it was either back it down now, or get hammered again by the natural variability facts.

Shawn from High River August 25, 2014 at 11:03 am
Ha ha! EPA painted themselves in a corner,so to speak.
——————————-
That’d place them in the Cloward and Piven corner.
Why do you think the EPA or Obama would care about rising energy costs or increased government?
This would surly put these bedfellows in the same bed and add to the destruction of freedom and liberty.
At some point you gotta believe evil has long replaced ignorance.

@ “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”.
Heh. Lucia’s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_Liljegren] comment over at Climate Audit comes to mind:
“We are seeing tons and tons and tons of “how to communicate” documents, but none seem to point out the obvious: We need to stop being caught lying. Oh… here’s a strategy to stop being caught: Don’t lie in the first place!”

That’s odd. No mention of Plutonium 239 or Cesium 134 or Cesium 137 or Uranium 238 or any of the other 1,200 toxic radionucleids pouring out of Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster at over 400 tons per day in the petabecquerel per litre range. Those damned Ph meters always have had horrible rad detectors in them.

Alarmists claim CO2 absorbed by the ocean forms carbonic acid that decreased the pH of seawater by 0.1 since the pre-industrial era. This is called ocean acidification. A student of college chemistry can easily debunk this theory.
The chemical equations involved are:
CO2 + H20 H2CO3
H2CO3 H+ + OH-
pH is claimed to have decreased from 8.2 to 8.1. The equation in molar concentration is:
10^-8.2 + X = 10^-8.1
Where X is the increase in H+ in moles/liter. Solving for X, we get X = 1.6 x 10^-9 mol/L
This is the value we need to prove the claim. If we don’t reach this H+ concentration, the theory is falsified.
The dissolved CO2 in seawater is 90 ppm. The CO2 converted to carbonic acid and dissociated to H+ is 10^-8.1 mol/L. This is the same as the molar concentration of H+ since one mole of CO2 is needed to produce one mole of H+ Convert this to ppm, we get 3.5 x 10^-10 ppm. Hence the ratio of CO2 converted to carbonic acid and CO2 dissolved in seawater is 3.9 x 10^-12
Next we find the amount of man-made CO2 that went to the ocean since 1750. Total anthropogenic emissions since that time is put at 10^15 kg, of which 26% went to the sea or 3 x 10^14 kg. Multiply this by the ratio of CO2 converted to carbonic acid, we get 1,218 kg or 27,680 moles of H2CO3 and H+
Total mass of the ocean excluding dissolved minerals and gases is 1.3 x 10^21 kg. Since CO2 is believed to be dissolved in the top 500 m of the sea, total water volume of that layer is 1.5 x 10^20 L. Now we have the molar concentration of H+ from man-made CO2. Just divide the number of moles with the volume of water = 10^-16 mol/L
The moment of truth. Man-made carbonic acid is 7 orders of magnitude short of the required value of 10^-9 mol/L to ‘acidify’ the ocean. As Adam and Jamie say, the myth is BUSTED.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy